By David M. Greenwald
While there have been conspiracy theories to the contrary, most of the people arrested in conjunction with the Capitol Riots from January 6 were in fact devoted Trumpists—while for the most part the people associated with rioting and looting over the summer were people not connected with the protests but instead were people simply were taking advantage of the moment.
Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican House minority leader, actually believed he needed to try to quash the belief that anti-fascist agitators were to blame for the violence inflicted by the group that stormed the Capitol.
“Some say the riots were caused by Antifa,” McCarthy told his colleagues. “There is absolutely no evidence of that, and conservatives should be the first to say so.”
Last year I interviewed Tampa area prosecutor Andrew Warren and we discussed, among other thing, protests and riots. Like most prosecutors, Warren saw a clear distinction between the people 
protesting and the people looting and rioting.
He told me, “Most of the people that we see committing crimes in connection with the protests are not protesters. They are people who are trying to take advantage of the situation.”
The big question in both cases is how do we know? The answer is that we can look at the court filings and it is pretty evident.
In the case of the protests over the summer—we have been tracking a number of looting cases in the Sacramento Courts, for example. Most of the defendants have a profile similar to many defendants in the criminal legal system.
Earlier this week, for example, Kathryn Wood and Lauren Smith covered the cases of Eric Azikiwe. He was caught looting at the local Best Buy on June 6—right during the heart of the protests. Witnesses saw subjects run out of the store grabbing electronics—including one of the people detailed with the defendant.
Testimony indicated that “the defendant was found outside of the store with the items in his hand which were confirmed to belong to the store.” Azikiwe also had another case that day—second degree-burglary. It was pretty clear from the evidence, this was not a protester who got carried away but rather a run-of-the-mill person involved in petty crime and participating in a crime of opportunity.
The DOJ, probably hoping to head off conspiracy theories, has been the most transparent I have ever seen prosecution be—posting all of the arrestees, even some of the evidence, on the DOJ website: https://www.justice.gov/opa/investigations-regarding-violence-capitol.
Take Daniel Adams, who is facing charges for assaulting a federal officer; obstructing law enforcement engaged in official duties incident to civil disorder; knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.
On the DOJ’s statement, they show social media interaction between Adams and others. They have identified numerous photos of Adams on the scene, with a very strong case toward his specific overt acts as well as his ties to pro-Trump groups.
Another example. On January 14, the DOJ put out a press release about the arrest of Kevin Seefried and Hunter Seefried, charged today in federal court in the District of Columbia in connection with the riots at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021.
Kevin Seefried and Hunter Seefried each were charged by complaint with one count of knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, one count of violent entry, and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds among other things.
Kevin Seefried was the individual who was photographed with the Confederate flag in the Capitol.
He told law enforcement that “he had traveled with his family from Delaware to the District of Columbia to hear President Trump speak and that he and Hunter Seefried participated in a march from the White House to the Capitol led by an individual with a bull horn.”
Moreover, in the statement of probable cause, the investigating officer noted that he “reviewed video footage posted to Twitter which shows Hunter Seefried punching out glass in a window in the Capitol complex after people adjacent to him in the crowd broke it with a wooden 2 x 4. Kevin Seefried confirmed to law enforcement agents that Hunter Seefried was asked by an individual unknown to the Seefrieds to assist with clearing the window because Hunter Seefried was wearing gloves.”
This is just one example. But it is clear from the complaint here that the Seefrieds were Trumpists, participating in the riots. In the case out of Sacramento, on the other hand, it was not an activist who got out of control, but rather a criminal act of opportunity.
One exception to this is the case of John Sullivan—who has been held up by many Trump supporters as evidence of the existence of leftist organizers on the Capitol Grounds. But if that is true, he appears from the filing to be an exception and, as publications like the Intercept reports, it is unclear what John Sullivan was actually trying to do during the siege.
John Sullivan filmed the fatal shooting of Ashli Babbit during the storming of the Capitol.
He was detained in Utah on charges of interfering with efforts by the police to stop the riot. Sullivan tried to play this off as if he was simply a journalist or an observer.
But in the complaint, Sullivan can be heard saying, “Why don’t we go in there?” Later, when the person is shot, Sullivan can be heard telling one of the law enforcement officers guarding the doors, as seen in the screenshot below, “We want you to go home. I’m recording and there’s so many people and they’re going to push their way up here. Bro, I’ve seen people out there get hurt. I don’t want to see you get hurt.”
As some of our commenters have noted as well, Sullivan’s presence has been a focal point of right-wing media feeding the conspiracy that pro-Trump rioters were actually left-wing anti-fascist agitators.
As the Intercept points out in a detailed article, “Although Sullivan began describing himself as a journalist in the aftermath of the raid, when his footage of the shooting was licensed by major news organizations, including the Washington Post and MSNBC, his raw footage captured him repeatedly expressing what sounded like genuine enthusiasm for the success of the riot. At one point highlighted in the federal complaint, Sullivan could even be heard trying to convince police officers to abandon their posts and let the rioters seize the House chamber.”
The Intercept continues, “Watching Sullivan’s footage makes it obvious that he was not leading but following the rioters as they made their way through police lines into the Capitol, eventually reaching the barricaded door of the Speaker’s Lobby, steps from the House chamber, where Babbitt was shot.”
They note: “Sullivan’s excited, real-time commentary on events as they unfolded, also raised questions from skeptics on the left about whether Sullivan was just posing as a right-winger to film the riot or really harbors right-wing sympathies.”
They point out: “Sullivan is a curious figure who is treated with suspicion or outright hostility by a number of left-wing organizers associated with Black Lives Matter and anti-fascism in Utah, California, and the Pacific Northwest.”
Months before Sullivan embedded himself in the right-wing mob that broke into Congress, a racial justice activist in Portland warned members of the movement “to not associate with Activist John,” calling him “deceptive, dangerous and daft.”
The Intercept continues, saying that “according to the activist, who goes by the name Gila on Twitter, Sullivan was responsible for dozens of protesters getting arrested at a Portland demonstration in September because he argued with local activists about the route to take ‘and led people down a dark street straight into a police kettle. Even though he had zero knowledge of the area he insisted people follow him and disregarded warnings from security.’ Sullivan, the activist wrote, ‘is living in a fantasy land.’”
Still, looking through the rest of the filings, you see people who were clearly committed Trumpists, many of them Proud Boys and followers of the QAnon Movement. That is demonstrated by extensive work by investigators showing social media posts as well as photos and video from January 6.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
Right, and this damage and destruction done on inauguration day in Portland wasn’t the result of left wing protesters either.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/protesters-gather-damage-democratic-headquarters-005147909.html
I notice you didn’t post the first paragraph: “A group of protesters carrying signs against President Joe Biden and police marched in Portland on Inauguration Day and damaged the headquarters of the Democratic Party of Oregon” – is this really your evidence?
Nice try but I don’t think right wingers are out protesting against imperialist wars, police murders and fascist massacres and shout stuff like this:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/01/20/us/politics/20inauguration-live-blog-portland-protesters/20inauguration-live-blog-portland-protesters-facebookJumbo.jpg
It would be helpful if you could make your argument rather than merely citing an article so I don’t have to guess what it is. It’s clear that these groups are not mainstream groups aligned with the President unlike the groups involved with the Capitol rioters who were clearly aligned with the former president.
David: You’re the one who is now making a “different” point than your headline suggests.
Or more accurately, you’re narrowing your focus to those who were only interested in looting, rather than the universe of those who were “protestors” (and committed crimes).
Actually I was writing about the summer protests, not about what took place yesterday.
Exactly, he’s dodging.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/portland-police-arrest-15-alleged-092959558.html
Actually, it’s a new group, spawned by the Proud Boy, neo-fascist, disinformation crowd, in response to Antifa… working name for the group is ‘Antisocials’… it’ll probably show up in the court documents… key is the ‘anarchist’ symbology… leftists/socialists want to use government to compel others to do things how they want them to do those… anarchists don’t want government.
Paul Gann was one of their prophets…
We don’t see, and won’t see, anyone on the Senate or House floor implicitly defending what the protestors did in Portland. We won’t see any other political leaders endorsing their agenda. And we don’t see a national leader “provoking” (as Sen. McConnell stated) the mob. As such, they do not stand as a real threat to our political system. There will always be fringe groups on both side protesting vociferously–we cannot and should not suppress them absolutely, although we should prosecute criminal acts such as the Oklahoma bombing vigorously. Similarly, damage in Portland also should be prosecuted at a level commensurate with the crime–breaking a window is akin to a misdemeanor; stealing a Congressional compute to sell to a foreign power is treason. The significance of the Capitol invasion is an order of magnitude greater in significance compared to localized, isolated violence at a few protests among many, many across the nation on either side of the political spectrum.
Careful… any link to protesters and looters is a slippery slope… as far back as Ferguson, MO… video footage of the looters focusing on electronic shops… no signs, no association with the protesters… even farther back, the 1906 looters were not ‘protesting’ the eathquake and fire… they were using ‘background’ as “cover”… in 1906, they were so brazen (called ‘ghouls’ by the SF papers), that martial law was declared (informally), and authorities issued ‘you may shoot on sight’ orders…
Ferguson, Portland, elsewhere, looters have used protests as “cover”… they were not about any ideological thingy except, “I want to get a freebie!” “It’s all about me!”
Vandalism, like breaking windows, spray-painting property, burning flags, is orders above (ethically) looters… still reprehensible, ineffective, still fully worthy of prosecution as a crime, but actually more moral than looters…
Huh?
Also – why are you including flag-burning in that “list”?
It’s not that the looters were so brazen 115 years ago, it’s that society is so “forgiving” 115 years later. After all, the looters need the stuff, right?
Mr. Olsen: This article isn’t about Portland, it’s about the Capitol in Washington, D.C. Please try to focus. I suggest you eat more bacon.
Mr. Hart, if you read the article it’s about the riot at DC and the BLM and Antifa riots that have been happening everywhere across the country and who is/was actually involved in the destruction and looting. My example of the Portland riot on Wednesday is on topic. So it’s you that I would suggest should please try to focus.
He can’t see past the blinding spectacle of his finger wagging in your face like the tail of an over-excited poodle.
You really feel the need to write this article? Why? Is there some dispute about who the insurrectionists support?
The big money knows the truth and they are cutting off McCarthy and the Republicans hence the Minority Leader’s efforts to repudiate the position he held right up until the riot.
Apparently there has been. Also, part of what we do is here is report on formal charges and court proceedings. Seemed like this article was in our bailiwick.
To generate posts and ‘hits’… duh!
Two weeks ago you were claiming it was antifa that was involved in the capitol riots, you used John Sullivan as your evidence, now that it’s clear that Sullivan was alone, you have completely ignored several comments of mine. I prefer to wait wait to see what the charging documents look like.
“Exactly, he’s dodging.”
Says the m—–p who won’t say “Trump is a loser and traitor.”
[edited] … reasonable folks all agree that anyone who participated in the insurrection is a criminal and should be prosecuted. I’d like to see those convicted sent to Guantanamo for lengthy terms. The traitorous ex-president should be impeached and barred from holding any office, as should the rest of his crime family.
Nah… wouldn’t even do that to Cuba! [could preclude ‘normal relations’, and perhaps a ‘conversion’ to Democracy]. Sending anti-democracy folk to Cuba would be “bad optics”…
Perhaps Antarctica would be better, so they could “chill out”… don’t think the penguins would mind… they’re natually ‘curious’…used to surviving despite ‘predators’… and what better place for a person ‘who would be “Emperor”‘, and his minions?
When members of the GOP damage buildings and riot, the media and the government calls out 26,000 troops and calls it an insurrection.
The the democrats groups, BLM and ANTIFA take over entire city blocks, then burn, loot, pillage and kill or maim innocents, as well as the cops, they declare it an unlawful assembly
Hold on Chris – the group that Keith cited is actually protesting against Biden and the Democrats, how do you arrive at them being the “democrats group”?
Chris G
Please post a cite to an article that describes the few protests where there was violence that you describe as an “unlawful assembly.” Otherwise you’re just making this stuff up.
What took place yesterday is the same thing that’s been occurring throughout the summer.
Again, looting is only one type of crime that’s been committed. As such, comparing those arrested for looting to those arrested at the Capitol is a meaningless comparison.
A more meaningful comparison would be to compare the ideology of those committing crimes (of various types, associated with protests) throughout the summer with the ideology of those storming the Capitol. In both cases, they are “protesters” (or however you want to label them).
“What took place yesterday is the same thing that’s been occurring throughout the summer.”
Actually it’s not. What happened over the summer was that in response to the George Floyd killing, a large and broad base of people rose up across the country and protested the injustice. In some places those protests also coincided with riots and looting, most of the riots and looting appears to be as described in this article. What happened yesterday is a that a relatively small core of Anarchists or other extremists caused property damage to the Democratic Party and were protesting Biden. That’s not what the summer was about.
Focusing on the looting is misleading. There were far more crimes than that which were committed – and not driven by the desire for a free TV.
I was simply pointing out the difference between the summer protests and what happened yesterday.
And apparently, some of this occurred yesterday again, as well. (On a much smaller scale, as you noted.)
Regardless, your comparison to those arrested for looting, vs. the Capitol protesters is not a meaningful comparison.
Had you compared the Capitol protesters to those who took over the section of Seattle, for example, that might be a more meaningful comparison. Or, those blocking freeways for extended periods, or those engaging in vandalism, etc.
Actually if you read the article – this was all a concoction of Keith, my point was looking at the charging documents for looting and the capitol rioters.
Again, not a meaningful comparison.
Seems to me that you write these articles for the purpose of “inciting comments”, at times. 😉
Though (on an almost-unrelated note), I suppose that some looters might also be “protestors”. Probably not many, based upon how most people would define a protester.
(Then again, you did have that one commenter who claimed that looting is a form of protest. And since vandalism is also involved with that, maybe the line isn’t as clear as it seems.)
Sitting down in place and impeding economic activity has long been a standard of non-violent protest. Are you equating rioting with non-violent protest? Are you saying that street marches that impede traffic are objectionable and directly comparable to rioting? Because that’s exactly what you’re doing everytime you bring up blocking freeways. There is no difference, not even in a matter of degree. People will be inconvenienced by protests that are protected by the First Amendment. If those protests are non violent and do not incite physical harm to others, they are allowed.
Blocking streets without a permit is not allowed by law and is not someone’s first amendment right. There I FIFY.
That’s why it’s civil disobediance
So anything goes in civil disobedience? What if someone is blocked from getting to a hospital with a dying passenger in their car?
Civil disobedience is by definition not legal activity
“What if someone is blocked from getting to a hospital with a dying passenger in their car?”
What if there is a parade? What if there is a street market? What if there is construction? What if there is a traffic jam? I get the illegal thing, but roads are blocked all the time and we manage.
Okay, then by definition storming the capitol is not legal activity.
Should it just be labeled “civil disobedience”?
I’m not aware of a civil disobedience defense. I suspect if all that happened was an illegal entry, there would not be legal charges.
All but one of your examples are predictable, enabling drivers to choose alternate routes.
To Keith’s point, civil disobedience is intended to be disruptive. That’s the point. Those who engage in civil disobedience have determined that the cause is important enough to risk the consequences.
No. But that’s not all that occurred.
Even if it was all that occurred, it (alone) has already led to death and injury. (Without even referring to incidents which purposefully resulted from that.)
Since you’re asking stupid questions, I’ll ask one of my own. Do you think that outcome is desirable?
Other than those who get mowed-down, they generally don’t face consequences. However, some of them have imposed consequences (as they see fit), on others who disregard their decisions to block roads – either accidentally or on purpose. There’s several examples of that, on the Internet.
And the folks who see nothing wrong with this contribute toward allowing dangerous, illegal situations to continue unabated, in the name of “civil rights”. Risking the well-being of both participants and non-participants.
Congratulations.
Tell that to Rosa Parks.
As Alan so aptly described it earlier:
That’s exactly the type of mistaken comparison that contributes to situations like this.
Maybe Rosa Parks should have been asked if she wanted drivers to be attacked, for disregarding (either on purpose, or accidentally) continuing, illegal roadblocks.
Or, if she thought it was a good idea (in general) to illegally shut-down freeways in a dangerous manner, resulting in accidental death and injury.
Or, if she thought it was a good idea to create a lawless zone in Seattle, resulting in (once again) death and injury.
If so, I guess I’d disagree with Rosa Parks (and you, apparently). And, not something that I see as a legitimate “civil right”, nor does the law – even if not enforced.
The underlying beliefs expressed on here are truly stunning, at times. It’s downright irresponsible and dangerous.
And the more I see of this, the greater the similarity regarding those who downplay the danger at the Capitol.
The primary differences being that the danger at the Capitol didn’t directly endanger the public at large, for months on-end.
Of course, when you start messing with more-powerful people (e.g., high-level politicians, vs. the “public”), you’re more likely to experience “consequences” – as we’re now seeing via arrests and federal charges.
You don’t need to cherry-pick to find numerous examples of how civil disobedience has been used to effect positive change. When you have 18 minutes to spare, see if you find this one inspirational:
https://youtu.be/SyWcCuVta7M
I might check that out later, but would also suggest that you view some videos of what’s occurred when drivers accidentally (or on purpose) have disregarded ongoing, illegal roadblocks.
Maybe review what happened in Seattle, as well (in the lawless zone).
I assume that you’re aware of this, already.
Civil disobedience implies a willingness to accept consequences for illegal actions. I don’t recall Martin Luther King chasing down drivers in vehicles and attacking them, when they’ve disregarded roadblocks.
Nor is this the same thing as college students blocking a walkway on campus, for example.
Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzrwf2Tz6z0
How inspiring, Keith – Rosa Parks would probably be proud.
Again, the more I see of this, the more I realize where the problem is actually coming from. (It’s those who see nothing wrong with this.)
At the same time, I’ve increasingly come to realize that there’s just no reasoning with people who are driven by some core belief (even if/when it conflicts with reality). They are too wrapped-up in those beliefs (and their perceived righteousness in those beliefs) to see (or admit) anything else.
Ultimately, it won’t matter how many videos you post, as they just won’t see it.
Who who are those people you are referring to? The problem is those who see everything as black and white and can’t distinguish between peaceful protest (which can involve civil disobedience)—see video I posted— and violent protest, which, by definition, entails civil or criminal disobedience.
Who?
Anyone who defends actions which cause property damage, injury, or death.
Including those actions which have a high probability of leading to that.
Which often seems to include those activities that you define as “peaceful protests” or civil disobedience” without consequences (other than harm inflicted upon others). I would include illegal freeway shutdowns in this category, and would call anyone who supports it as being irresponsible.
And sorry to say, but I see no substantive difference between those who defend those actions, vs. those who defend what occurred at the Capitol.
What I see are those who defend such actions only if they align with their underlying political views. And worse still, they don’t admit it, and attempt to deflect.
This is also related to the reason that the country is divided.
I thought about this a little more, and realized that some might be suggesting that “civil disobedience” has its place as a tool, as long as they face consequences for illegal activity – especially that which endangers others (and which is something that no one should advocate or engage in, regardless).
And that such consequences may include arrest (even for illegal activity that is claimed to be “peaceful”).
I have no problem with that. However, I doubt that this reality is universally-accepted, either.
Or more accurately – accept the possibility of consequences – even for “peaceful” illegal actions.
Those are the protesters who are ultimately the most effective, as well.
If this occurred (instead of what we’ve been seeing), I doubt that there’d be much negative reaction.
“I’m not aware of a civil disobedience defense.”
The point of civil disobedience is to accept the punishment for a minor offense to bring attention to a greater wrong.
There is a defense know as the defense of necessity. Its hard to win using that defense.
But today instead of accepting the punishment, the (fill in the blank) protestors complain about it and demand to be released and not held responsible for their actions.
After reading this article and comments today, I went to the store and bought a crate of cherries. I then drove to a field of cherry trees and carefully glued the cherries back on the trees.
No… Jan 6 insurrrection was “messing” with ‘the people’… as in “We the people”… which is supposed to be the ‘most powerful’ … what was before the House and Senate were ministerial, ceremornial acts… no real power there, except for the deluded… the PEOPLE voted… the Electoral College and the states, Secretaries of States, Governors attested to the votes…
Saying,
is absolute male bovine fecal matter… it was the most recent attempt to overturn the very foundation of the Constitution… to ‘see it’ otherwise, means you need a trained service dog, and/or cane.
And a sitting President, egging it on, support of attorney friend (at a minimum, Guliani should be disbarred) with family joining (on the public dole) as well… it’s actually treasonous… sedition… the federal penalty is death.
But, as a paean to those opposed to the death penalty (and I’m trending that way, not quite there), complete ‘political death’, imprisonment, shunning, monetary fines, derision, etc., should all be on the palette… just my opinion… this has been unprecedented in this degree… fortunately we have un-presidented one… but he definitely had co-conspiritors, enablers, etc.
Max penalties for each… the whole thing up to, including Jan 6 (a ‘day that will live in infamy’) is reprehensible… The Donald led, but he had a lot of ‘back-up’… mainly sychophants, enablers, and or apologists (in the bad sense of the word)… many have ‘back-pedalled’… they still should not be trusted in the future…
IMNSHO…
As you previously noted, there is likely a “range” of intentions and actions by those participants. Charge them appropriately, and let the prosecution prove its case. Unlike some, I’m not willing to conduct a trial by blog. So, unless I see an action on a videotape, for example, I’m less-willing to offer an opinion on a blog beyond what I see.
But yeah, when you start messing with more powerful people, you will generally experience more consequences for the same crime. That’s true throughout society, and is also a foundation for those who claim the current system is unjust for those with lesser means (both victims, and those charged).